Raw

PaulieC

Hi Everyone,

I've been reading with interest some of the comments that people make here regarding the use of RAW. The general perception I get from those comments is that people have a kind of reverence for RAW and it almost has a mythical quality about it (one post even advised against shooting RAW as it was so complicated).
This got me wondering...am I missing out on something? I shoot raw all the time, but the only thing that I can see is different is the need to convert from that to a useable format like TIFF or JPG. I know all bout the adjustments that can be made without loss of quality, but are these really so different from what you can do with a JPG, considering about 99% of the pics that people take go no further than a 6x4 print or on a web page.
Is there more to RAW? I feel like I'm missing out on some great secret here, please tell me I'm not...
Thanks,
Paul

melekalikimaka

tis all bout the wb

tab126

I like to pretend I'm superior when I shoot in raw. Lately, I've been shooting in RAW+L mode, which saves a copy of the image as a jpg and in RAW format. I'm using the jpg's to upload on the web and saving the raw's in case one comes out really well and I want to get it printed. I like the white balance adjustments that raw lets me do (and jpg's can't), but it is a hassle and waste of disk space to save the raw, original tiff, and the end jpg. I'd say a good majority of the time, it isn't worth it, but I'm waiting for that one magical shot that I'll want to play a lot with and get printed HUGE.

melekalikimaka

humm is the quality thats much better??? I know that canon raws are uncompressed but Nikon NEFS are compressed aren't they?

PaulieC

I think it proably does make a difference if you're printing huges and you can process the RAW file and save in TIFF and you've no loss.
As for WB, I use MS Digital Image Suite sometimes and I can change the WB in there, although it is limited...

Morlar

The reason I shoot in Raw is because if you under or over expose a picture you can bring it back whereas if it was a jpeg you could try salvage it in photoshop but the results would be a lot more messy.

311

I was lead to believe that everytime you save a file in JPEG format ,you automatically loose quality.
Everytime you adjust a raw image ,the quality of the output is at it's maximum.
Everytime you adjust a jpeg image from the camera you loose quality straight away ,because its the second compression of the file.

B0rG

Depends what (and how) you're shooting.
Jpeg has some compression artifacts. But the most important thing it uses 8 bit per color (give you 256 gradations) where's RAW gives you 12 - 14 bit (depending on camera) giving you 4096 - 16384 gradations per pixel.

Typical applications of that would be white balance and exposure compensation (more details are saved in raw - more details you can bring from raw).

Normal raw workflow:
1. mark nice raw pics
2. copy them to a folder (process for print)
3. make low quality jpegs from all pictures
4. burn RAWs to DVD

There is pluging for librarian software WhereIsIt that does thumbs for raw pictures - I'm just using low quality jpegs.

PaulieC

but if you really blow you highlights or lose your shadow detail, no amount of tinkering in RAW will bring them back.
It seems to be a case of RAW just being more flexible than JPG at the expense of having a longer workflow to get what you want?

Zombrex

cambo_gueno wrote:

Is there more to RAW? I feel like I'm missing out on some great secret here, please tell me I'm not...
Thanks,
Paul

The difference between shooting in JPG and shooting in RAW is the same difference between getting a photo lab to develop your pictures and doing it yourself in a dark room: Control

RAW allows you to shoot without having to worry too much about things like white balance until you get back to your computer. I know of very few people who change the white balance for each shot when shooting JPG.

You can also tweak exposure setting with raw. This doesn't compensate for having completely the wrong exposure when taking the photo, but it can help in certain situtations when exposure is just a bit off

Something like Picassa can do all this for a JPG image, but it is faking it and as such the quality will not be as good.

And the most important aspect is that JPG is lossy format. Everytime you edit or convert a JPG and save again you are losing information. Do that a few times and you will start to notice artifacts appearing, even on high quality JPGs

binglebangle

I think this guy pretty much covers JPG/RAW here:-

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

DeVore

You wont lose quality every time you save a jpeg. Its not ideal to process, save, process, save, process, save but if you simply save the same file 50 times, it doesnt turn into monochrome mush. Jpeg is smarter then that.... I'm not saying anything about RAW vs Jpeg (it seems to come down to usage vs speed/ease) but thought I'd put that in.

DeV.

311

DeVore wrote:

You wont lose quality every time you save a jpeg. Its not ideal to process, save, process, save, process, save but if you simply save the same file 50 times, it doesnt turn into monochrome mush. Jpeg is smarter then that.... I'm not saying anything about RAW vs Jpeg (it seems to come down to usage vs speed/ease) but thought I'd put that in.

DeV.

Dev , what way does jpeg work when "joining the dots"?.
I always thought that jpeg does it's best to create a picture with the imformation it has and that it's this method that looses quality.

edit : I just found this

It turns out that if you decompress and recompress an image at the same
quality setting first used, relatively little further degradation occurs.
This means that you can make local modifications to a JPEG image without
material degradation of other areas of the image. (The areas you change
will still degrade, however.) Counterintuitively, this works better the
lower the quality setting. But you must use *exactly* the same setting,
or all bets are off. Also, the decompressed image must be saved in a
full-color format; if you do something like JPEG=>GIF=>JPEG, the color
quantization step loses lots of information.

Unfortunately, cropping doesn't count as a local change! JPEG processes
the image in small blocks, and cropping usually moves the block boundaries,
so that the image looks completely different to JPEG. You can take
advantage of the low-degradation behavior if you are careful to crop the
top and left margins only by a multiple of the block size (typically 16
pixels), so that the remaining blocks start in the same places. (True
lossless cropping is possible under the same restrictions about where to
crop, but again this requires specialized software.)

The bottom line is that JPEG is a useful format for compact storage and
transmission of images, but you don't want to use it as an intermediate
format for sequences of image manipulation steps. Use a lossless 24-bit
format (PNG, TIFF, PPM, etc) while working on the image, then JPEG it when
you are ready to file it away or send it out on the net. If you expect to
edit your image again in the future, keep a lossless master copy to work
from. The JPEG you put up on your Web site should be a derived copy, not
your editing master.

Taken from : http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/

DeVore

Jpeg works by looking for very very small squares what are either all the same colour or close enough that noone is going to see. The more aggressive the compression the bigger the square and the more relaxed it is about what is considered "the same colour".

Thats why you get artifacts at hi compression and they become clearer when you increase contrast and gamma.

Once the compressor finds a square of similar colour (lets say its a 4x4 square of blue and near blue) then rather then saving all the data for those pixels, it write a piece to the jpeg file that says "start a 4x4 square of blue here". Thats much more efficient then the other way but it forces those pixels from their true colour into the colour of the square.

Now, if I save a picture as Jpeg, then open and save it again, the same squares are going to be chosen for the second save as the first (in fact it will simply ignore them afaik because its already in jpeg format). However if you open the file again and do an alteration to say, the levels or something, then its my understanding that it will re-compress the file and a little more info is lost.

What I dont understand is what they dont do an on-the-fly conversion to some format that compresses WITHOUT loss, like TIFF or even 24bit BMP!

DeV.

andy1249

Jeez I have to say that that Ken Rockwell Guy really has a bee in his bonnet about RAW , the man hates it with a passion.
Something bad must have happened to the guy. He has far too much of a reaction to the whole subject.

Anyway , I have been shooting a lot of weddings lately , I use Canon , almost exclusively , and one Thing I can tell you for sure , there is no way the quality from the flat Jpegs produced by the camera would make a decent photo album.

No , almost all the shots have to be WB corrected ( especially from inside the church ) and the skin tones and Dress detail etc have to be brought out.

Its impossible to be adjusting the camera settings for every shot , there simply isnt the time , even with multiple cameras , you cant hold up the proceedings for camera shots , that makes a very impatient crowd. You have to work with the normal flow of the day.

No , raw is the only way to go for events like this.
I usually spend the whole day at the wedding , its roughly about an 8 am to approx 6 or 7 pm job , I spend the next day processing the days shots in CS2 , I will generally need about 150 to 200 shots for the couple to pick an album from. All of the shots are supplied on CD as well.
The final shots will all be Jpeg on the CD but all will have been processed along the way from a RAW shot.

When you work with RAW all the time the steps needed ( different for each shot ) comes naturally and the flow becomes quick and easy , it takes maybe 2 thirds of a day to complete processing for a wedding.

RAW is the only option here , it would be futile to try something like a wedding using just Jpeg.

Zillah

Why would anyone repeatidly save the same jpg file?

I do the following: Shoot in maximum quality Jpg and copy to PC storage. Any photos worth post processing get processed and saved as both a .psd and a new, smaller Jpg. I can load up the .psd file and export as many different version as I like without worrying about quality loss.

EDIT:

it takes maybe 2 thirds of a day to complete processing for a wedding.

*wonders if he knows about that action recording feature in photoshop*

DeVore

Zillah wrote:

Why would anyone repeatidly save the same jpg file?

I do the following: Shoot in maximum quality Jpg and copy to PC storage. Any photos worth post processing get processed and saved as both a .psd and a new, smaller Jpg. I can load up the .psd file and export as many different version as I like without worrying about quality loss.

Yup thats what I do too ... well actually I save off the Jpegs from my camera, burn to CD and move anything I want to work on to a workshop area and then to a final completed folder (Picasa's way of working and then exporting is great for this). Then I occasionally backup the finals to CD too.

Noone should work/save/work/save on JPEGs multiple times, you are at the mercy of the compression routine.

DeV.

311

I use Jpeg's when practicing shots ,but if I'm at something important or doing stuff I'm not sure about ,I'll shoot in raw so I will have a decent copy.

If you've just bought a camera ,or are practicing composition jpeg should be grand . But if you are somewhere special I'd recommend shooting in raw ,you can crop and adjust and still have something special.

thats my view of format.

Zillah

_Brian_ wrote:

I use Jpeg's when practicing shots ,but if I'm at something important or doing stuff I'm not sure about ,I'll shoot in raw so I will have a decent copy.

If you've just bought a camera ,or are practicing composition jpeg should be grand . But if you are somewhere special I'd recommend shooting in raw ,you can crop and adjust and still have something special.

What are you talking about? Fine quality jpgs are indistinguishable from raw by the human eye. You can edit and adjust jpgs fine. To my understanding the only real difference is a few features such as white balance.

And I have no idea what the crop comment was about, that would have to do with resolution, not format.

311

Zillah wrote:

What are you talking about? Fine quality jpgs are indistinguishable from raw by the human eye. You can edit and adjust jpgs fine. To my understanding the only real difference is a few features such as white balance.

And I have no idea what the crop comment was about, that would have to do with resolution, not format.

I actually enjoy black and white photographs as much as colour.

Valentia

Jpegs do degenerate with multible saves. That's a fact. I can't find the link now but there are striking examples on the net of how quickly this can happen. Theoretically DeVore is right but unfortunately the reality is different.

If you are archiving either save the RAW or convert to TIFF. Preferrably 16 bit TIFF. There is no loss with tiffs but the file size is bigger.

It's true that if the highlights are really blown RAW wont save a pic but RAW will save many pics where the highlights look blown out. Here are some links that I gave on another thread. It is worth taking the time to read them though they can be a bit technical:

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/englis...logy_01_2.html

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/englis...logy_01_4.html

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...se-right.shtml

The last one is really interesting and is the main reason I shoot RAW.

I think this guy pretty much covers JPG/RAW here:-

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

That Rockwell guy is an eejit. The internet's equivelant of a Sun reporter.

Zillah

_Brian_ wrote:

I actually enjoy black and white photographs as much as colour.

Uh, thats nice.

..

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said though...

Valentia wrote:

Jpegs do degenerate with multible saves.

As myself and DeVore already pointed out, that is easily avoided with a little common sense.

311

Zillah wrote:

Uh, thats nice.

..

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said though...



As myself and DeVore already pointed out, that is easily avoided with a little common sense.

Why would you open and save a file without editing it ???
Spaghetti can be eaten on it's own ,but tastes better with sauce.

Zillah

Oh for the love of...

Step 1 - Open jpg X.
Step 2 - Peform manipulations.
Step 3 - Save jpg Y.

Jpg X remains as it was straight from the camera.

Valentia

Oh for the love of what????

You use jpegs for weddings?? Hmm. Yes it speeds your workflow but it is not what I would consider best practice for your clients. Did you read the links I posted here and as a response to you on another thread? If you did and you still insist on not using RAW for paid work I dunno what to say to be honest.

This may be of interest to someone. From About.com.
JPEGs lose quality every time they are opened, edited and saved.

True. If a JPEG image is opened, edited, and saved again it results in additional image degradation. It is very important to minimize the number of editing sessions between the initial and final version of a JPEG image. If you must perform editing functions in several sessions or in several different programs, you should use a image format that is not lossy (TIFF, BMP, PNG) for the intermediate editing sessions before saving the final version. Repeated saving within the same editing session won't introduce additional damage. It is only when the image is closed, re-opened, edited and saved again.

mathias

That Rockwell guy is an eejit. The internet's equivelant of a Sun reporter.

Agreed , hes funny , totally inconsistent , he has a page which starts off explaining why Megapixels arnt important , claims to have a blown up 3.3 mp and a 6 mp to something like a small poster and shows theres no difference ,
then goes on to say at the bottom of the page that digital cant replace film cos it doesnt have enough megapixels and says that an " excellent " 8 x 10 needs at least 7.2 megapixel.

Total ranting lunatic with a short term memory problem if you ask me !!

Edit : Heres the link , for a good laugh ,
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

311

Zillah wrote:

Oh for the love of...

Step 1 - Open jpg X.
Step 2 - Peform manipulations.
Step 3 - Save jpg Y.

Jpg X remains as it was straight from the camera.

To think that images I use to edit when I started using computers were ansi images ,and jpegs didn't exist .
Now I don't know what jpegs are ,after all that time :rolleyes:

Fionn

yeah i remember ansi, then everything was tiff and the list goes on!
that ken fella sure is a dude with a tude huh?

i didn't read all his pages but there is some valid things there too among all the sneering - i think jpegs have their place in photography as does raw format and as has been said it all depends on the job in hand. I was doing a little project recently and saved all my files in psd format which i could return to as things developed as far as i can see it would be the same as saving in tif or any other losless format.
what i find at times is that i don't have enough time to convert all the raw images i might take which seems a bit of a waste, but maybe during the long winter months i can go back and process them all

Zillah

Valentia wrote:

Oh for the love of what????

God. As only he has sufficient patience...

You use jpegs for weddings?? Hmm. Yes it speeds your workflow but it is not what I would consider best practice for your clients. Did you read the links I posted here and as a response to you on another thread? If you did and you still insist on not using RAW for paid work I dunno what to say to be honest.

You're getting confused between my responses I think. I never said anything about using RAW or not, all I've done is point out that the loss of quality with jpgs is a non-issue with even the teeniest bit of computer knowledge/common sense. And I don't work professionally, not yet anyway.

And yes, I'd used jpgs for weddings. It would serve my clients perfectly and I challenge you to explain what exactly is insufficient with a 3000 x 2000 pixel, maximum quality jpg? Because white balance can be set on the camera itself and the reduced quality problem can be easily avoided as I explain below.

This may be of interest to someone. From About.com.
JPEGs lose quality every time they are opened, edited and saved.

Fascinating, but it doesn't matter.

I take a photo. This is photo X. It is a jpg file. I copy this to my computer. I then open it and perform some sharpening and colour adjustments. I then go to "save as" and save jpg A. I then decide it might look good in sepia. I revert to photo X and perform the sepia and then save jpg B. I keep trying out different stuff and save ten different version, all based on the original photo X.

Not one of them has any reduced quality. There was no repeated editing, no individual file had more than one edit/save.

And you Brian, you appear to be having a conversation all of your own so I'll leave you to it.

Mathias wrote:

Agreed , hes funny , totally inconsistent , he has a page which starts off explaining why Megapixels arnt important

His argument is actually very good. Megapixels are an extremely misleading measurement. For example, a 14MP camera is only twice as good as a 3MP camera.

The reason is that you mutiply the sides, thereby compounding any difference in size to make it seem like there is a huge difference.

311

Ansi files are made from blocks ,just like any image file .
If you read the post I posted earlier yesterday ,you would have read the facts about Jpeg files. It actually states that you should always have a master copy of your work in a non loss format.

If your going to pass smart comments ,at least have the courtesy to read the person's post first.

JMcL

Zillah wrote:

Oh for the love of...

Step 1 - Open jpg X.
Step 2 - Peform manipulations.
Step 3 - Save jpg Y.

Jpg X remains as it was straight from the camera.

Jpeg X does, but JPEG Y certainly doesn't

Subjectively it will look the same, providing you save at a high enough quality level. JPEG is a lossy compression algorithm, it throws away information that the algorithm thinks won't be missed. See theJPEG FAQ first entry "What is JPEG?".

Repeat the above 100 times and you will end up with mush. Yes I know you don't do this in practice, but you will lose quality each time you re-edit and save an image.

If you're happy using JPEG and it serves you for what you're doing great. JPEG will do what most people want and can be the better choice for certain situations even if you do shoot mostly raw. Be happy with it but please don't post statements which are just plain wrong

tab126

The one thing I haven't really seen discussed is the ability to choose the compression level on a computer vs in the camera. At least on my camera, I don't get to choose the compression level of my jpegs, but photoshop lets me do that.

And all this talk about "taking too long"... Computing cycles are CHEAP nowadays. If I shoot 200 RAW images in a session, I'll adjust the white balance for one, then apply it to all of them when I convert. That's pretty much what you do when you set the WB in the camera, right? You don't re-adjust for EVERY image. I'll also start the conversions before I go to bed. I have no worries that my computer can handle mindless tasks while I'm sleeping.

And if you REALLY want to automate your workflow - get a linux box. The tools for manipulating RAW files are great and won't EVER become obsolete (because they're command line tools, not plug-ins). When I came back from Europe with 15 gigs or RAWS, I let linux to all of the jpeg conversions/sizing overnight (via a tiny script i one-off'ed) and viewed them all in windows via windows networking.

My point is just that flow is personal. I like the extra color depth; I think it makes my pictures look more vibrant and affords me more (optional) control. I also like knowing that if I print at 20"x30", I run a smaller risk of having jpg artifacts showing up. Whether those effects are real or not is of only marginal relevance to me.

Valentia

And yes, I'd used jpgs for weddings. It would serve my clients perfectly and I challenge you to explain what exactly is insufficient with a 3000 x 2000 pixel, maximum quality jpg?

I don't think we are on the same wavelength. Was I talking about pixels? I agree with you completely there but the debate about RAW and jpegs has nothing to do with pixels though.

I did weddings for 10 years. Even though I was organised and fortunatelt never had any major disasters I'll give you two reasons why you should use RAW.

With the best organisation in the world mistakes can still happen. Lets say thet you start shooting and realise that you have set the white balance incorrectly. If you shoot jpeg you are banjaxed. I know you said on another thread that this can be adjusted in PS. It can't. Read the link to Silkypix that I have put up and it will explain why.

Reason two is the brides dress. Usually white and usually really difficult to stop getting blown out especially on a sunny day. Reading the link to Luminous Landscapes that I gave will explain why RAW is so useful in that kind of situation.

I did get your X & Y example. I put the quote in for others who might be getting confused.

I picked you up wrong re the weddings, sorry. But I really feel that with critical work the worst format you can use is jpeg.

As Tab126 says automating RAW workflow is a doddle. If you invest in enough memory card power you don't even have to worry about that because you can shoot in both RAW and jpeg using the RAW as a safety valve.

311

Zillah wrote:

And yes, I'd used jpgs for weddings. It would serve my clients perfectly and I challenge you to explain what exactly is insufficient with a 3000 x 2000 pixel, maximum quality jpg? Because white balance can be set on the camera itself and the reduced quality problem can be easily avoided as I explain below.

And you Brian, you appear to be having a conversation all of your own so I'll leave you to it.

Zillah ,I seen in your deviant account that you have your camera a few weeks ,quote from Deviant

Dated entry 31 august 2006 :
"Like a growly bear I arise...but not with an insatiable hunger for the flesh of man, no, but with a Nikon Digital SLR! Wheee! I'm still playing around with it and learning the basics but I LOVE it so far."

Oh for the love of ....

Zillah

_Brian_ wrote:

Zillah ,I seen in your deviant account that you have your camera a few weeks

Oh goody, Ad Hominem can now be added to your increasing pile of gibberish. Go troll elsewhere. I did indeed get my digital SLR a few weeks ago. And there was the film SLR before that and the compact digital before that...Not even a good Ad Hominem.

Valentia wrote:

With the best organisation in the world mistakes can still happen. Lets say thet you start shooting and realise that you have set the white balance incorrectly. If you shoot jpeg you are banjaxed. I know you said on another thread that this can be adjusted in PS. It can't. Read the link to Silkypix that I have put up and it will explain why.

Those links were actually quite disingenuous. It has some really badly edited jpgs as examples of why they're no use.

I suppose it comes down to a choice between danger of messing up White Balance and convenience of use. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using RAW, I just think its a bit redundant for 90% of the shooting that 90% of people would be doing.

JMcL wrote:

Zillah wrote:

Step 1 - Open jpg X.
Step 2 - Peform manipulations.
Step 3 - Save jpg Y.

Jpg X remains as it was straight from the camera.

Repeat the above 100 times and you will end up with mush. Yes I know you don't do this in practice, but you will lose quality each time you re-edit and save an image.

If you're happy using JPEG and it serves you for what you're doing great. JPEG will do what most people want and can be the better choice for certain situations even if you do shoot mostly raw. Be happy with it but please don't post statements which are just plain wrong

How exactly is the above statement "just plain wrong"? What I said is absolutely true; you can easily avoid the degredation of quality by not re-editing the same image.

If you've taken anything else from what I've said then thats your mistake and I'll thank you not to blame me for it.

311

Zillah wrote:

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using RAW, I just think its a bit redundant for 90% of the shooting that 90% of people would be doing.

Zillah ,just to let everyone know ,exactly how long are you using raw files ??

Zillah

I never claimed to use RAW files. I'm going on what I've read and heard from others.

Now, if you'd stop attacking the poster and try and make an actual point that'd be sweet.

Valentia

Those links were actually quite disingenuous. It has some really badly edited jpgs as examples of why they're no use.

I give up. You are so right :rolleyes:

Zillah

Valentia wrote:

I give up. You are so right :rolleyes:

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? Look, I'll show you. The first link has three images; a unmodified original, a processed RAW and a processed JPG. The JPG obviously looks worse. However, I was easily able to adjust the JPG file so that it looks significantly better than the RAW sample.



As you can see the white is slightly cleaner in the JPG than the RAW.

For the record, I'm not saying anything about RAW vs JPG, I'm just pointing out that the website that supplied these was being disingenuous, the examples they give are complete bullshit.


The second link is self evident, just look at what an atrocious job they did of editing the JPGs, its awful. My cat could do better while walking across the keyboard. The third link I'll admit is over my head, I'm not familiar with the technicalities of it.

Valentia

The jpeg has a megenta cast, the raw doesn't. That was the whole point of the article. Colours are linked in jpeg while they are not in RAW. So by adjusting to white in a jpeg it is having a detremental effect on other colours. People generally use exagerated examples to make a point.

That's not my point though. My point is that it is impossible, in most cases, to correct a white balance error in a jpeg. It's easy with RAW. If you don't see that there is no point in me trying to convince you. I use jpeg a lot but I would never consider it if I was getting paid for a job or if I was taking stuff that I wanted to print for the wall. There is also the fact that RAW software is in its infancy so that by shooting RAW and archiving it, it will be possible to be able to do even more with it in years to come.

Zillah

Valentia wrote:

The jpeg has a megenta cast, the raw doesn't. That was the whole point of the article. Colours are linked in jpeg while they are not in RAW. So by adjusting to white in a jpeg it is having a detremental effect on other colours. People generally use exagerated examples to make a point.

But...if I'm able to adjust the sample JPG to look as good as the RAW then theres absolutely no point in using an example at all. Its meaningless at best, misleading and dishonest at worst.

Hence like I said, the website was being disingenuous by using artificial examples to make their point.

That's not my point though. My point is that it is impossible, in most cases, to correct a white balance error in a jpeg. It's easy with RAW. If you don't see that there is no point in me trying to convince you. I use jpeg a lot but I would never consider it if I was getting paid for a job or if I was taking stuff that I wanted to print for the wall. There is also the fact that RAW software is in its infancy so that by shooting RAW and archiving it, it will be possible to be able to do even more with it in years to come.

I'm not contesting that. Like I already said:

Zillah wrote:

I suppose it comes down to a choice between danger of messing up White Balance and convenience of use.

ie, RAW or jpg.

FreeAnd..

Its a simple one to solve - RAW is God....and i definitely agree with you Valentia that Raw software is in its infancy so down the line you will be able to do better work with old photos that were taken in raw.

I dont personally see any benefit in shooting in Jpeg (unless speed and storage is an immediate concern). You can always convert the Raw to Jpeg but not vice versa and also photoshops Jpeg conversion is far superior to that of the cameras.

If you shoot with Jpeg as the master then you are limiting yourself unneccessarily and loosing out on the benefits of Raw. These really only become apparent when shooting in Raw for a while - (White Balance Correction, Far better B&W converision, Lossless Crop etc....). The quicker you start shooting in raw the quicker you can forget about jpeg except for web presentation and if this is all you ever want then jpeg is fine...but its all about - down the line...

Morlar

I have started to use Raw and wont be going back, its miles better imo, in terms of wb and over/underexposure it cant be beat. You can adjust jpgs in photoshop but its just not the same thing. The adjustments are not as smooth or natural looking.

Re jpeg and editing - I have also started to only ever edit in tiff as its lossless and loads just as fast as jpeg, plus in windows it still works for preview and screenshow if you want to see how pics work alongside each other. If theres a final version to go on the web I save it as a smaller jpeg and keep the tiff. Some times pictures can be edited over the course of weeks or months, edit and then come back to it and so on - jpeg artifacts appear surprisingly quickly. It seems sensible to me to not have jpeg1, jpeg2, jpeg3 and so on - just work in tiff and save the final in jpg and there is no issue anymore with lossless compression.

I cant imagine shooting a wedding for someone in jpeg - I would never - ever be that brave. If you screw those pictures due to a passing cloud or whatever you could have a horrible impact on the couples record of a once in a lifetime event.

The thoughts of using jpg to record a wedding make absolutely no sense to me at all. Yes its easier/quicker - one step less in the workflow - but the chance of ruining them is not worth saving yourself a few seconds on the pc the next day.

mathias

Zillah , You might actually try to start reading posts properly before you heckle ?
I was not pointing out any faults with Rockwells megapixel argument , more his inconsistency , which I believe I said ,

He starts by saying that a 3 mp and a 6 mp have no noticeable difference , then goes on to say that you need 7.2 mp to make an excellent 8 x 10.
If thats so then why wont a 3 mp image do ? Seeing as he goes to great pains to explain that theres hardly any difference between that and 6mp ( or for that matter 7mp .....I believe the calculation would say you would need 12 mp to improve on a 3mp picture !!! )

Ysee , thats called inconsistency ,
Thats what I was pointing out ,

Take some time before you respond to posts and think about it , you might not look so foolish

DeVore

And if you attack the post only and not make smart comments about the poster you might not get banned....

DeV.